Advertisement

Effects of nutrition on productivity of March-calving beef cows and progeny when grazing corn residue or fed hay prepartum, and grazing subirrigated meadow or fed hay postpartum

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      Objective

      This study evaluated the effects of grazing corn residue prepartum and subirrigated meadow postpar- tum versus harvested meadow hay during both periods on cow pregnancy rates and calf feedlot performance.

      Materials and Methods

      Crossbred March-calving cows (yr 1, n = 72; yr 2, n = 65; yr 3, n = 64) were used in a 2 × 2 factorial as part of a 3-yr study. From De- cember 1 to February 28 (prepartum), cows grazed corn residue (CPRE) or were fed 7.7% CP and 56.8% TDN hay (HPRE) ad libitum. From parturition to July 20, half were fed ad libitum hay (HPOST) and half grazed subirrigated meadow (MPOST).

      Results and Discussion

      No interactions were present between pre- and postpartum treatments. Cows on HPRE had greater precalving and prebreeding BW and BCS (P < 0.01), whereas CPRE cows tended to have an earlier calving date (P = 0.07) and a greater percentage calving in the first 21 d (P = 0.07). Cows on MPOST had greater BW and BCS at prebreeding (P < 0.01) and weaning (P < 0.01) than HPOST cows. These differences were maintained until the following year pretreatment leading to greater overall BW and BCS (P < 0.02) in MPOST cows. Pregnancy rates were similar regardless of treatment (P > 0.50). Calves born to MPOST cows had greater BW at birth (P = 0.05), prebreeding (P < 0.01), and weaning (P < 0.01) and had greater ADG from birth to prebreeding (P = 0.01) and birth to weaning (P < 0.01) than HPOST calves. Steers from HPRE cows had a greater marbling score than CPRE steers (P = 0.02).

      Implications and Applications

      Grazing corn residue or feeding hay prepartum and feeding hay or graz- ing subirrigated meadow postpartum affected BW and BCS during the pre- and postpartum periods of cows and calves. However, limited effects were detected on dam re- production.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      LITERATURE CITED

        • Braungardt T.J.
        • Shike D.W.
        • Faulkner D.B.
        • Karges K.
        • Gibson M.
        • Post N.M.
        Comparison of corn coproducts and corn residue bales with alfalfa mixed hay on beef cow-calf performance, lactation, and feed costs.
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2010; 26: 356-364https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30615-X
        • Corah L.R.
        • Dunn T.G.
        • Kaltenbach C.C.
        Influence of pre-partum nutrition on the reproductive performance of beef females and the performance of their progeny.
        J. Anim. Sci. 1975; 41: 819-824https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1975.413819x
        • Freetly H.C.
        • Ferrell C.L.
        • Jenkins T.G.
        Timing of realimentation of mature cows that were feed-restricted during preg- nancy influences calf birth weights and growth rates.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2000; 78: 2790-2796https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.78112790x
        • Johnson B.B.
        • Jansen J.
        • Giri A.
        • McAfee B.
        • Smith E.
        Nebraska Farm Real Estate Market Highlights 2012–2013.
        Nebraska Farm Real Estate Reports. 10. 2013 (Accessed Jan. 15, 2022)
        • Larson D.M.
        • Martin J.L.
        • Adams D.C.
        • Funston R.N.
        Winter grazing system and supplementation during late gestation in- fluence performance of beef cows and steer progeny.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2009; 87: 1147-1155https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1323
        • Morrison D.G.
        • Spitzer J.C.
        • Perkins J.L.
        Influence of pre-partum body condition score change on reproduction in mul- tiparous beef cows calving in moderate body condition.
        J. Anim. Sci. 1999; 77: 1048-1054https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7751048x
        • Mulliniks J.T.
        • Cox S.H.
        • Kemp M.E.
        • Endecott R.L.
        • Waterman R.C.
        • VanLeeuwen D.M.
        • Petersen M.K.
        Relation- ship between body condition score at calving and reproductive perfor- mance in young postpartum cows grazing native range.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2012; 90: 2811-2817https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4189
        • Petersen M.K.
        • Mulliniks J.T.
        • Roberts A.J.
        • Waterman R.C.
        Challenges to predicting productivity of grazing ruminants: Where to now?.
        Pages 180–188 in Proc 4th Grazing Livest. Nutr. Conf. West. Sect. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 2010
        • Randel R.D.
        Nutrition and postpartum rebreeding in cattle.
        J. Anim. Sci. 1990; 68: 853-862https://doi.org/10.2527/1990.683853x
        • Short R.E.
        • Bellows R.A.
        • Staigmiller R.B.
        • Berardinelli J.G.
        • Custer E.E.
        Physiological mechanisms controlling anestrus and infertility in postpartum beef cattle.
        J. Anim. Sci. 1990; 68: 799-816https://doi.org/10.2527/1990.683799x
        • Stalker L.A.
        • Adams D.C.
        • Klopfenstein T.J.
        • Feuz D.M.
        • Funston R.N.
        Effects of pre- and postpartum nutrition on repro- duction in spring calving cows and calf feedlot performance.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2006; 84: 2582-2589https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2005-640
        • Underwood K.R.
        • Tong J.F.
        • Price P.L.
        • Roberts A.J.
        • Grings E.E.
        • Hess B.W.
        • Means W.J.
        • Du M.
        Nutrition during mid to late gestation affects growth, adipose tissue deposition, and tenderness in cross-bred beef steers.
        Meat Sci. 2010; 86: 588-593https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.008
        • Volesky J.D.
        • Schacht W.H.
        • Richardson D.M.
        Stocking rate and grazing frequency effects on Nebraska Sandhills meadows.
        J. Range Manage. 2004; 57: 553-560https://doi.org/10.2307/4003987
        • Wagner J.J.
        • Lusby K.S.
        • Oltjen J.W.
        • Rakestraw J.
        • Wettemann R.P.
        • Walters L.E.
        Carcass composition in mature Hereford cows: Estimation and effect on daily metabolizable energy requirement during winter.
        J. Anim. Sci. 1988; 66: 603-612https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1988.663603x
        • Wettemann R.P.
        Precalving Nutrition/Birth Weight Inter- action and Rebreeding Efficiency.
        The Range Beef Cow Symp. 214
        Cheyenne, WY
        https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rangebeefcowsymp/214?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu %2Frangebeefcowsymp %2F214 &utm _medium =PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
        Date: 1993
        Date accessed: January 15, 2022
        • Wiltbank J.N.
        • Rowden W.W.
        • Ingalls J.E.
        • Geegoey K.E.
        • Koch R.M.
        Effect of energy level on reproductive phenomena of mature Hereford cows.
        J. Anim. Sci. 1962; 21: 219-225https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1962.212219x